Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590

Facts

  • The case centered on the interaction between the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and the Housing Act 1925.
  • The 1919 Act set out specific rules for compensating landowners whose property was compulsorily acquired by the government.
  • The 1925 Act introduced different rules for compensation in its defined context, leading to conflicting approaches with those in the 1919 Act.
  • Ellen Street Estates Ltd, the appellants, argued that the 1925 Act did not operate to remove the relevant parts of the 1919 Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the compensation provisions of the Housing Act 1925 operated to repeal, by implication, the compensation rules in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.
  2. What standard courts should apply to determine when implied repeal operates between conflicting statutes.
  3. Whether minor variances or partial disagreements between two Acts are sufficient to trigger implied repeal.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal, led by Scrutton LJ, determined that the 1925 Act’s compensation rules replaced those of the 1919 Act for the relevant cases.
  • The court noted that the compensation frameworks of the two Acts were so inconsistent that they could not both be given effect simultaneously.
  • It was held that, in such cases, the later Act prevails, and the earlier law is repealed by implication to the extent of the inconsistency.

Legal Principles

  • Implied repeal arises only when there is a direct and unavoidable conflict between two statutes; minor differences are insufficient.
  • Courts generally seek to interpret statutes harmoniously and avoid implied repeal unless no other interpretation is possible.
  • When a specific and later statute is inconsistent with an earlier and more general statute, the specific provision typically prevails.
  • Express repeal, where a new law directly cancels earlier provisions, is preferred for clarity but implied repeal remains necessary for unforeseen statutory conflicts.
  • The approach in Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health was reinforced by earlier and later cases, such as Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733, and Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59, confirming the doctrine’s importance in statutory interpretation.

Conclusion

Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health confirmed that if two laws irreconcilably conflict, the later law impliedly repeals the former. This upholds parliamentary sovereignty and legal coherence, requiring precise legislative drafting and reinforcing the doctrine’s enduring role in statutory interpretation.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal